6 ms·

Either new evidence changes the picture, or it doesn't. Objecting to checking is not science.

_a_a_a_ 4y ago
What new evidence. The guy's post said it was checked by linguists and found inadequate to support your claim. Not that your claim is wrong, just unsupportable by that checking.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    Yes. Iust can't see the word 'semitic' or 'carthage' there, am I missing something?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
      - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        What explicitly is the link. What is the new evidence. Please be specific.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.
eesmith 4y ago
I wanted to know what you were talking about in the first place. Not whether this runestone find affects our understanding of history. What does "the picture" mean? For just about every topic there are multiple pictures, depending on one's interest. I think it's good science for geospatial information scientists to object to requests to check for a flat earth, and for medical scientists to object to using humoral theory in medical diagnostics, so I think your second sentence, when interpreted a blanket statement, is wrong. Surely Mailhammer, or Vennemann, or you could perform and publish your own checks, so I also don't see how your comment is relevant - who is stopping them from checking?
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > Publishing, maybe, if the results come out pointing the "wrong" way. Poppycock. As the source I pointed to shows, those two authors have been publishing along these lines for years. > Equating the possibility of literate Carthaginians having sailed to the Baltic Sea I'm showing how your flat assertion about how science works is not correct. I said nothing about Carthaginians having reached the North Sea, much less the Baltic. (Earlier you said Denmark, and you don't need to get to the Baltic to get to Denmark.) If you want to have a real argument, make a real argument. Don't start by using faulty logic to dismiss others. > Whenever older runes show up, the picture might change. But of course. From what I gather, that's why specialists in this field are so interested in this work. Do note that this mild statement of your is quite different from your earlier assertion that "Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms ... seems unlikely to enlighten". What is your strongest argument that the semitic origin hypothesis is viable enough to warrant its coverage in a paper like this? Simply that they could have reached Denmark? And why is it more viable than, say, Tartessian explorers?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Denmark is at the threshold of the Baltic sea. Anyone who, like the Carthaginians, could have sailed to the Baltic sea would get there via the North Sea (or down the Oder River). Such quibbling is beneath you. Carthaginian influence might or might not be more relevant than Tartessian. It depends on the facts. Explorers are much less likely to affect origins of a script than settlers or refugees who were there at the formative time. Has anyone suggested a Tartessian influence, or are you just making shit up? Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science, but common, maybe moreso in history than in other fields.

What new evidence. The guy's post said it was checked by linguists and found inadequate to support your claim. Not that your claim is wrong, just unsupportable by that checking.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  Yes. Iust can't see the word 'semitic' or 'carthage' there, am I missing something?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
    - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
      What explicitly is the link. What is the new evidence. Please be specific.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.

eesmith 4y ago

I wanted to know what you were talking about in the first place. Not whether this runestone find affects our understanding of history. What does "the picture" mean? For just about every topic there are multiple pictures, depending on one's interest. I think it's good science for geospatial information scientists to object to requests to check for a flat earth, and for medical scientists to object to using humoral theory in medical diagnostics, so I think your second sentence, when interpreted a blanket statement, is wrong. Surely Mailhammer, or Vennemann, or you could perform and publish your own checks, so I also don't see how your comment is relevant - who is stopping them from checking?

moloch-hai 4y ago
[flagged]
- eesmith 4y ago
  > Publishing, maybe, if the results come out pointing the "wrong" way. Poppycock. As the source I pointed to shows, those two authors have been publishing along these lines for years. > Equating the possibility of literate Carthaginians having sailed to the Baltic Sea I'm showing how your flat assertion about how science works is not correct. I said nothing about Carthaginians having reached the North Sea, much less the Baltic. (Earlier you said Denmark, and you don't need to get to the Baltic to get to Denmark.) If you want to have a real argument, make a real argument. Don't start by using faulty logic to dismiss others. > Whenever older runes show up, the picture might change. But of course. From what I gather, that's why specialists in this field are so interested in this work. Do note that this mild statement of your is quite different from your earlier assertion that "Any discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms ... seems unlikely to enlighten". What is your strongest argument that the semitic origin hypothesis is viable enough to warrant its coverage in a paper like this? Simply that they could have reached Denmark? And why is it more viable than, say, Tartessian explorers?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Denmark is at the threshold of the Baltic sea. Anyone who, like the Carthaginians, could have sailed to the Baltic sea would get there via the North Sea (or down the Oder River). Such quibbling is beneath you. Carthaginian influence might or might not be more relevant than Tartessian. It depends on the facts. Explorers are much less likely to affect origins of a script than settlers or refugees who were there at the formative time. Has anyone suggested a Tartessian influence, or are you just making shit up? Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science, but common, maybe moreso in history than in other fields.